| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2004 06:33:16 PM · #1 |
| Got mine today, all I can say is WOW! First L-glass for me and I'm a happy person! |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 06:42:28 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Got mine today, all I can say is WOW! First L-glass for me and I'm a happy person! |
Awesome lens huh? I had one when I was deciding between that and the 35-350L, I ended up going with the 35-350 but still really, really liked the 100-400.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2004 06:52:46 PM · #3 |
| How are you finding the push/pull zoom? I've just been reading on Fred Miranda and there seems to be fairly mixed views.. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 06:59:57 PM · #4 |
I can't decide between 70-200 F2.8 or 100-400mm .. What do you people recommend?
|
|
|
|
05/29/2004 07:01:44 PM · #5 |
Quote from Fred Miranda link above:
"I have done a brief test of a static subject using a 70-200 f2.8 with 2x TC at 400mm, a 35-350 at 350mm and the 100-400 at 400mm f5.6. The result was that the 70-200 with the TC attached was clearly the worst for sharpness and contrast; which surpised me as the lens without the TC is a stunner. The 35-350 produced a very good sharp image (which I have come to expect from it) but the 100-400 was noticeably better - sharper and with more contrast." |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 07:25:37 PM · #6 |
I am glad i went with the 100-400, the 70-200 is supposedly better, but I would not give up the reach for minimal improvement in quality, IMO unnoticable to most people for most shots. I think it depends tho on what kind of photography you personally like to do, If you like landscapes more than candids and wildlife well could be best to get 70-200. 100-400, kit lens and macro lens are the only 3 I use now.
push/pull- i actually prefer it, tho it did take a few days of sotting to get used to it.
taken yesterday with this lens, what I love about it is the very fine feather detail that it captures, esp. on the herons neck
Message edited by author 2004-05-29 19:36:46. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 08:15:57 PM · #7 |
After I got used to it I've also come to like the push/pull design on these lenses. It lets me get to where I want in the zoom range really quick.
I think the 100-400 put out slightly better pictures, possibly in part due to the IS which is really helpful. I ended up going with the 35-350 though because I knew I could get used to using it with no IS, and that it helped reduce my lens load. The 100-400 would have required me to carry one more lens, ie, a mid range lens.
Right now I carry my 10D, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 Macro, 16-35mm 2.8L, and the 35-350mm 3.5L in a Tamrac Velocity 9. Not to heavy of a load, easy to carry, though I'm not really sure how I feel about the Tamrac.
Now if Canon would just make the 35-350 in an f/2.8 IS package that was compatible with the 2X extender at half the price... that'd be sweet. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 09:18:21 PM · #8 |
The EF 70 - 200 mm L is an f/2.8, the 100 - 400 mm L is an f/4.0 - 5.6. If you're after a bokeh, if you want your subject to stand out, the 70 - 200 mm L can do this better and more frequently.
If you're after a finch under good light, with little but the finch in the image, the 100 - 400 mm will probably do a nice job of it.
If finches leave you cold or if you know one who doesn't mind you getting a little closer, you can probably get tack-sharp pictures of him including an old lady with a large hat.
The joy of the 100 - 400 mm L image will be in the visible pose and detail of the little bird. If the picture is really good, perhaps the Audobon society will be interested in a print.
The joy of the 70 - 200 mm L image will probably (hey, I'm speculating) come from the tangibe textures in the old lady's hat or the surreal 3-D finch captured just above it under the copper light of a dying sun.
The push-pull zoom would be quicker to use and, likely, easily drop out hitting your right toe while pointed down.
A screw-type zoom would be more precise than a push-pull one, albeit at the expense of speed. Your toes would have a chance to move out of the way too before the two-ton weight of the 400 mill hits 'em.
Message edited by author 2004-05-29 21:28:15.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 01:57:07 AM · #9 |
I really like the lens. Haven't a firm opinion of the push/pull zoom yet but I'm guessing I'll get used to it quickly.
The only thing I can think of that I don't like is the additional weight. Hopefully I will always remember to pick the camera and lens up by the lens, something I've never had to do before. The sales clerk suggested a monopod which is probably a good idea. Kinda defeats the purpose of IS but that's another story.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 02:03:28 AM · #10 |
I love this lens too. I'm getting more and more into birds and wildlife since I got it. The push pull zoom doesn't bother me at all. In fact I like how quickly and easily I can zoom it. Congratulation on yours.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 02:26:11 AM · #11 |
alot of people think that aperture is the primary determinant of bokeh, when in reality, it is a synergy of aperture, focal length, and distance to subject. Hence, they tend to underestimate the ability of the long focal length to produce dreamy out-of-focus backgrounds.
for example, here are a couple 300mm at f/5.6 shots :
 
You will get even more pronounced bokeh at 400 mm.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The EF 70 - 200 mm L is an f/2.8, the 100 - 400 mm L is an f/4.0 - 5.6. If you're after a bokeh, if you want your subject to stand out, the 70 - 200 mm L can do this better and more frequently.
If you're after a finch under good light, with little but the finch in the image, the 100 - 400 mm will probably do a nice job of it.
If finches leave you cold or if you know one who doesn't mind you getting a little closer, you can probably get tack-sharp pictures of him including an old lady with a large hat.
The joy of the 100 - 400 mm L image will be in the visible pose and detail of the little bird. If the picture is really good, perhaps the Audobon society will be interested in a print.
The joy of the 70 - 200 mm L image will probably (hey, I'm speculating) come from the tangibe textures in the old lady's hat or the surreal 3-D finch captured just above it under the copper light of a dying sun.
The push-pull zoom would be quicker to use and, likely, easily drop out hitting your right toe while pointed down.
A screw-type zoom would be more precise than a push-pull one, albeit at the expense of speed. Your toes would have a chance to move out of the way too before the two-ton weight of the 400 mill hits 'em. |
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 03:11:30 AM · #12 |
I've had mine about a month now and absolutely love it.
I use the full 400 mm frequently, and that was my reason for going for this lens over the 70-200. Although I agree that the 70-200 is better glass, out at 400mm there it does a better job from what I have read (Luminous landscapes I think it was, with good examples) than the 200 with a x2 teleconverter ... and a lot less fuss.
I am still not totally sold on the push pull design, but an getting used to it.
It really boils down to what people need to use the lens for, and personally I don't think you can go far wrong with either.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 07:44:45 AM · #13 |
| My biggest reason for not getting the 100-400 ('cause I'd love the 400mm reach!) is the push-pull zoom -- which means that air is being sucked in and out of the sensor box, which means more dust problems. The 70-200 is sealed against the elements... |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 08:31:43 AM · #14 |
I have had my 100-400 IS Since early 2000 and have used it a lot in dusty environments (Arizona) and it has hardly any dust inside of it at all. It certainly has no more dust in it than my 70-200mm f/2.8L which is almost as old. I am very careful about lens changes as I think the main path for dust entrance is through the lens mount. I honestly don̢۪t believe that dust is any more of a problem with this lens than it is with the other EF lenses.
Here is a shot I took with mine yesterday. This is an untouched right out of the digital rebel shot hand held at 400mm f/5.6 and 1/50 sec.
//www.pbase.com/image/29531164
If the dust problem is the only thing stopping you from enjoying this excellent lens and you want this FL range I would go ahead and buy one.
Greg
Originally posted by EddyG:
My biggest reason for not getting the 100-400 ('cause I'd love the 400mm reach!) is the push-pull zoom -- which means that air is being sucked in and out of the sensor box, which means more dust problems. The 70-200 is sealed against the elements... |
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 08:43:46 AM · #15 |
Greg: sounds like your experience with the 100-400 has been positive, and it definitely is tempting. But I've read (and seen examples of) the potential dust problem, and read quotes like "the push-pull zoom sucks in dust like you won't believe" enough to hesitate. (The 100-400 makes a huge "air sucking" noise as you zoom which just makes me cringe thinking about the potential air particulates collecting inside the lens and on the sensor...)
Message edited by author 2004-05-30 08:44:30. |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 09:04:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Greg: sounds like your experience with the 100-400 has been positive, and it definitely is tempting. But I've read (and seen examples of) the potential dust problem, and read quotes like "the push-pull zoom sucks in dust like you won't believe" enough to hesitate. (The 100-400 makes a huge "air sucking" noise as you zoom which just makes me cringe thinking about the potential air particulates collecting inside the lens and on the sensor...) |
With such an expensive lens and given it "sucks" air in and out, you'd expect Canon to have incorporated some sort of filter system into the design. It's not like anybody can disassemble a lens to clean it, not to mention the warranty ramifications involved in doing so.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 10:08:50 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
My biggest reason for not getting the 100-400 ('cause I'd love the 400mm reach!) is the push-pull zoom -- which means that air is being sucked in and out of the sensor box, which means more dust problems. The 70-200 is sealed against the elements... |
Same here, so I went for the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x converter. And it's not just dust problems, it's humidity, I can imagine the humidity being sucked in and eventually causing problems such as mold on the lens surfaces...Maybe I'm just paranoid...LOL
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 10:54:56 AM · #18 |
Ok, been reading up a bit.. What about this lens:
Sigma EX 120-300mm f2.8 APO HSM
Here is a review from American PopularPhotography: review
they actually rate it better then the 70-200 2.8 IS lens..
Here is another review: PhotoMagazin
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 11:22:49 AM · #19 |
I just wanted to chime in as another happy 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS owner. The sharpness and versatility of this lens is really impressive.
I was on the fence for a few months trying to decide beteen this lens and the 400mm F/5.6L fixed length lens, which is a bout $400 cheaper and is definitely sharper than the 100-400 at that length. Luminous Landscapes has a good comparison of the two.
In the end, I decided that I needed the versatility of 100-400 in my bag since I anticipated pulling back from 400mm somewhat frequently, and did not want to have to change lenses all the time. I like this lens for zoo trips, for example, or for candid photography. And the IS is a big plus.
The bokeh of this lens is awesome in my opinion. One of the first test images I took was of a pair of goldfinches in my backyard. the shot itself is nothing special, I saved it for a good example of the out-of-focus elements this lens produces:
A few days ago I used this lens to take a shot of a macaw at the Richmond Metro Zoo - the background on this photo is also agreeably soft, and the macaw is very sharp considering the low f/5.6 aperature. But I was shooting handheld and 1/90 was as low as I wanted to go, IS or no IS.
Just my opinions of this lens - there are lots options to choose when trying to get to a sharp 400mm end result.
Happy shooting,
Rich. |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 12:13:50 PM · #20 |
something perhaps worth mentioning about the push/pull design is the ability to have it smooth or tight when pushing or pulling. I am not completely sure how but seems if at a medium resistance it does not have a lot of room 'for sucking', just a thought.
(there are possibly some real physics possibly at play-but I don;t do math : ) |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 01:28:57 PM · #21 |
Here's a bokeh sample image taken with an EF 70-200mm f/4 L:
Exposure time: 1/250 (0.00400)
Shutter speed: 1/250.00
F-stop: 4.5
ISO speed: 200
Focal length: 200.0000
Flash: 0
Orientation: 1
Aperture: 4.3398
Exposure bias: 0.0000
Here are some stats re dof:
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 2 m > ca. 2 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 2 m > ca. 3 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 4 m > ca. 6 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 4 m > ca. 8 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 6 m > ca. 18 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 6 m > ca. 32 cm sharp dof
Message edited by author 2004-05-30 13:32:33.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 02:36:59 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Here's a bokeh sample image taken with an EF 70-200mm f/4 L:
Exposure time: 1/250 (0.00400)
Shutter speed: 1/250.00
F-stop: 4.5
ISO speed: 200
Focal length: 200.0000
Flash: 0
Orientation: 1
Aperture: 4.3398
Exposure bias: 0.0000
Here are some stats re dof:
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 2 m > ca. 2 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 2 m > ca. 3 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 4 m > ca. 6 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 4 m > ca. 8 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/2.8 focused at 6 m > ca. 18 cm sharp dof
@ 200mm f/4.0 focused at 6 m > ca. 32 cm sharp dof |
Good bokeh indeed - the next lens I purchase will very likely be this one - probably the best bang-for-the-buck "L" glass out there, at least in a zoom.
Message edited by author 2004-05-30 14:37:26. |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 03:53:08 PM · #23 |
To be honest that reason for not buying a push-pull zoom like the 100-400 is unsound. The dustiest lens I have ever seen was a 200mm f/1.8L and it does not zoom at all. I have also seen plenty of dusty primes and weather sealed zooms. The dust problem is more of a problem with how lenses are handled than the zooming mechanism employed in their design. I know it sounds logical that the push-pull design could pull in dust but the reality is that it is no more susceptible to dust entrainment than any other lens with internally moving optics. If you are going to disregard lenses like the 100-400 IS then you should also disregard lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8L that does not have internal zooming. Another lens that I have seem some very dust-full examples of is the EF 80-200mm f/2.8L. To me this was very surprising since the rear of the lens is pretty well sealed by the rear element and the lens is internal zoom and focus. If dust is a major worry for you then I think the smartest thing to do is just to make sure you change lenses in dust-free areas and keep exposure of the inside of the camera body and the lens mount to the outside air to a minimum.
Greg
Originally posted by EddyG:
Greg: sounds like your experience with the 100-400 has been positive, and it definitely is tempting. But I've read (and seen examples of) the potential dust problem, and read quotes like "the push-pull zoom sucks in dust like you won't believe" enough to hesitate. (The 100-400 makes a huge "air sucking" noise as you zoom which just makes me cringe thinking about the potential air particulates collecting inside the lens and on the sensor...) |
|
|
|
|
05/30/2004 03:57:14 PM · #24 |
The 300mm f/4L is not weather sealed either and is also susceptible to the same dust and humidity that the 100-400 is. I hope this wasn̢۪t your only reason for going with the 300mm f/4.
Greg
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by EddyG:
My biggest reason for not getting the 100-400 ('cause I'd love the 400mm reach!) is the push-pull zoom -- which means that air is being sucked in and out of the sensor box, which means more dust problems. The 70-200 is sealed against the elements... |
Same here, so I went for the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x converter. And it's not just dust problems, it's humidity, I can imagine the humidity being sucked in and eventually causing problems such as mold on the lens surfaces...Maybe I'm just paranoid...LOL |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2004 03:52:35 PM · #25 |
| Found my first dust on the sensor after using the 100-400 on a mild windy, slighty dusty environment. The dust may not have been caused by the push/pull though. I saw an opportunity to use my 28-135 and switched lenses. I tried to do this carefully, and inside my vechicle..but you never know for sure. I'm usually very careful about changing lenses. I've had the camera for about six months through a variety of situations and have changed lenses countless times... and this if the first dust I've spotted dust on the sensor. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 08:40:40 AM EDT.
